United States v. Eric D. Walker

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Eric D. Walker

202 F.3d 1066, 2000 WL 144271

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided March 21, 2000·No. 99-2920·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, Eric D. Walker challenges the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the court erred by sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because one of his predicate convictions was obtained through a guilty plea that lacked an adequate factual basis. We affirm Mr. Walker’s sentence.

Like the district court, we conclude that Mr. Walker may not collaterally attack his prior state convictions in this sentencing proceeding, despite his claim that state and federal law preclude him from collaterally attacking his prior convictions. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 487, 496, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) (with limited exception of conviction obtained in violation of right to counsel, defendant may not collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentence under ACCA); United States v. Field, 39 F.3d 15, 18-19 (1st Cir.1994) (refusing to allow defendant to attack state conviction in context of sentencing under ACCA even where he was no longer in custody for state conviction and could no longer attack sentence in state court or by federal habe-as review), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1088, 115 S.Ct. 1806, 131 L.Ed.2d 732 (1995).

Mr. Walker argues that Custis should not bar his collateral attack because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal proceedings underlying the state convictions at issue. Mr. Walker did not raise this argument below, however, and in any event, the court in Custis distinguished ineffective-assistance claims from denial-of-counsel claims, concluding that only the latter are excluded from the general rule against collaterally attacking prior convictions used for federal sentence enhancements. See Custis, 511 U.S. at 494-96, 114 S.Ct. 1732; United States v. Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc) (plain error standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, Eric D. Walker challenges the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the court erred by sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because one of his predicate convictions was obtained through a guilty plea that lacked an adequate factual basis. We affirm Mr. Walker’s sentence.

Like the district court, we conclude that Mr. Walker may not collaterally attack his prior state convictions in this sentencing proceeding, despite his claim that state and federal law preclude him from collaterally attacking his prior convictions. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 487, 496, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) (with limited exception of conviction obtained in violation of right to counsel, defendant may not collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentence under ACCA); United States v. Field, 39 F.3d 15, 18-19 (1st Cir.1994) (refusing to allow defendant to attack state conviction in context of sentencing under ACCA even where he was no longer in custody for state conviction and could no longer attack sentence in state court or by federal habe-as review), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1088, 115 S.Ct. 1806, 131 L.Ed.2d 732 (1995).

Mr. Walker argues that Custis should not bar his collateral attack because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal proceedings underlying the state convictions at issue. Mr. Walker did not raise this argument below, however, and in any event, the court in Custis distinguished ineffective-assistance claims from denial-of-counsel claims, concluding that only the latter are excluded from the general rule against collaterally attacking prior convictions used for federal sentence enhancements. See Custis, 511 U.S. at 494-96, 114 S.Ct. 1732; United States v. Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc) (plain error standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

United States v. Eric D. Walker, 202 F.3d 1066, 2000 WL 144271 (8th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

202 F.3d 1066 (United States v. Eric D. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related